Rothkopf’s jailbreak from the Zionist captivity is sure to embolden others

In the novel or AMC series that will some day be made about the American Jewish relationship to Israel, two of the main characters will be based on Michael Borenstein and David Rothkopf. Both born in 1955 (my year), they arrive at Columbia University in 1977 and wind up being good friends and roommates. They are on the cusp of the Jewish explosion into the U.S. establishment. But Borenstein doesn’t quite believe it. He believes in the endurance of anti-Semitism. And he is the stronger character of the two. He is sterner, more confident, better-looking. Blue eyes and sharp cheekbones, the leading man type. He thinks he is smarter too.

Former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren

And he is a man of action: he throws himself into supporting Israel, to the point of emigrating and changing his name from Bornstein to Oren. He serves in the Israeli army. He is repeatedly arrested by the KGB on feats of derring-do on behalf of the Jewish people in Eastern Europe. He serves in the Israeli government, ultimately as its ambassador to the United States, sacrificing his citizenship here.

While Rothkopf gets on the American meritocracy gravy train. He gets the fattest envelope that rising Jews of my generation could get — a political appointment in the Clinton administration — and that leads in time to a lot of other plums. The Council on Foreign Relations, ceo and editor of Foreign Policy. He writes a forgettable book celebrating the American elite, of which he is now a goldstamped member, and there’s a neurotic edge to this character. He needs a lot of affirmation. He gives too much respect to his old friend.

But the truth of the story is that Rothkopf is the smarter and stronger of the two, he just doesn’t know it yet. And as middle age breaks the two men on its wheel, Rothkopf finally takes Oren on, by visiting Israel for three short days in 2013, and comes away horrified as an American. Still he can’t break his silence, till Oren prods him. What did you think?

David Rothkopf

And Rothkopf breaks free in the remarkable exchange of letters that he published yesterday at Foreign Policy, in which he demolishes Oren and exposes him as a flat anachronism, made up of stupid bluster (“We’re surrounded by a sea of supremely armed insanity”) and hectoring lectures (“Do you regard yourself as part of the Jewish people? Do you consider your life inextricably linked to the Jewish story?”) and lies (Palestinians have equal access to water, he claims) with no sense of how the world regards Israel.

In this moment, the Rothkopf character comes into his own. He tells us what he really thinks and he’s the thoughtful and secure one, Oren is provincial. Zionism is “exactly the wrong” response to history, Rothkopf says, and delivers a speech about history that brings everyone to their feet:

The best protection (as the United States has demonstrated) is to institutionalize the concept of tolerance and diversity and to work tirelessly to ensure that the powerful impulses to segregate and divide are quashed. It is not easy. But it has made the United States the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history — though only after a series of horrific errors, including slavery and the genocide against Native Americans and the devaluing of the role of women, were ultimately remedied. We’re not there yet.

I.e., everything you’ve devoted your life to was a mistake.

I wrote about the letters yesterday but obviously I can’t get over them. Ilene Cohen wrote me to say that Israel is now “cooked.” That when someone of Rothkopf’s stature comes out, it allows others in the elite to come out and declare, Guess what, I was never for Zionism, either. “I’m just a canary in the coal mine, Rothkopf writes,” she said. “There will be more. Kerry was a canary, too. And think about Martin Indyk making that speech at WINEP.”

Cohen also asked a question: How is it that Rothkopf never went to Israel before?

The answer is at the heart of the relationship between American Jews and Israel. Most of us have never been. I didn’t get there till I was 50 years old. Like Rothkopf, I was pursuing the rewards and pleasures of American society and was afraid of what that place looked like.

But there was also deference. We understood ourselves as part of a cohesive American Jewish community that held the breathing tube for Israel, for one part of our community was the political faction that ensured America’s devotion to Israel (in sharp distinction to Oren’s fantastical booklength propaganda that Americans love a religious state). In Rothkopf’s case, the advocacy was direct. He stood up for Israel against its critics. In my case it was passive: Till the Iraq war forced me to get on the stick, I accepted the prohibition of my Oren, neoconservative Eric Breindel, whom I knew in my elite college: You don’t know enough about this to get involved, he told me. I thought he was smarter than I was. And I stayed away.

As Rothkopf says to Oren, “you are smarter and more knowledgeable about much of this than I am.” Bullshit.

Why the deference to madmen? Well that is the substance of the novel or TV series. Israelis were manly. Oren was getting arrested by the KGB while Rothkopf was working on his pencil-neck. They were fighting and dying, while we were serving in the front lines of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations. They were devoted to our security, they said, and any community defers to its security forces. And there was a spiritual dimension. They called themselves “aliyah,” which means they are higher. We are yoredim, meaning we are lower. I was informed of this by my mother’s best friend who made aliyah in 1968, from Indiana to Jerusalem. And that religious attitude infuses secular Jewish life in the “psychological Zionist captivity,” to use Max Blumenthal’s phrase.

Of course this is a story about careerism and the lobby. David Rothkopf wouldn’t be a CEO if he hadn’t said the right things about Israel. But as Michael Oren insists in those letters, this is a matter of Jewish identity, of how Jews construct their relationship with the wider world. Blumenthal is liberating Jews and so is Rothkopf. At bottom they are both anti-Zionists; and it is only a matter of time before Rothkopf will endorse democracy between the river and the sea because two states is the dead hand of history.

It’s a great moment. Rothkopf sounds a lot like our publisher Scott Roth when he rejects as “intolerable” Netanyahu’s claim to be king of the Jews even as he commits human rights violations against Palestinians.

For the state of Israel to undervalue or be slow to implement or respect any of these issues of basic rights not only reflects badly on the United States as a sponsor and supporter and ally of Israel, but it reflects badly on Israel as a democracy and as a state that stakes a claim on representing Jews worldwide. (Personally, I find this latter perspective intolerable too. Netanyahu’s tendency to sometimes speak for the Jewish people far overreaches any powers offered him either in the Israeli Constitution or by virtue of any other aspect of his position.)

This kind of talk terrifies Michael Oren. He reminds his old roommate about the breathing tube:

I agree that we cannot afford to lose elite opinion in the United States…. Israel must treat the attitudinal and generational shifts you mentioned not as an image problem but as a strategic threat.

Then Rothkopf explains that it’s not just elites, and, shedding the neurotic careerism, identifies himself with the grassroots:

You can refer to it as a problem among “elites.” It is not. It is a problem among important communities that are essential to the coalition that has provided support for Israel in the past and will be just as important in the future. You know that. … It is guys like me. You know, guys who grew up in New Jersey who were captivated by the story of a Jewish state that was in a way “ours,” who were lifted up by the heroism of the Six-Day War, guys who admired the stories of turning the desert green. You know guys like that, right? You were one.

So Rothkopf reveals himself as an American everyman, and– Israel’s next existential threat. That’s the end of the story, really. That resolves the personal conflict. And maybe the larger conflict too.

About Philip Weiss

Posted In:

100 Responses

Oren writes to Rothkopf, “I agree that we cannot afford to lose elite opinion in the United States…. Israel must treat the attitudinal and generational shifts you mentioned not as an image problem but as a strategic threat.”

Oren isn’t in the same ballpark with what Rothkopf is writing. Does he imagine Rothkopf to be writing strategy about how Zionism can beat back the human rights hordes? “We need to cement the elites, Michael, or we’ll lose Greater Israel for another two thousand years!” Is that what he took from what Rothkopf wrote?

My sole dissent is how Phil framed this. This is the full quote from Rothkopf(which Phil edited down, a bit too much in my view):

You can refer to it as a problem among “elites.” It is not. It is a problem among important communities that are essential to the coalition that has provided support for Israel in the past and will be just as important in the future. You know that. It is not just the rise of J Street. It is not just liberals and the Walt-Mearsheimer anti-Israel Lobby Crowd. It is guys like me. You know, guys who grew up in New Jersey who were captivated by the story of a Jewish state that was in a way “ours,” who were lifted up by the heroism of the Six-Day War, guys who admired the stories of turning the desert green. You know guys like that, right? You were one.

Phil seems to interpret this as Rothkopf identifying himself with grassroots. Well, he talks about liberals, but in a negative, i.e. “not just liberals”.

He is basically telling Oren that this is an internal Jewish rift, too. Which is why he adds “You know guys like that, right? You were one”. Rothkopf acknowledges the liberal grassroots, but doesn’t identify with them; he is telling Oren about slipping Jewish support from average, non-elite, Jews. He’s right about that, of course, but it is ultimately a tribal argument. Phil overinterpreted his quote, in my view, making Rothkopf sound a bit too universalist than he is as of now. (I think he’ll get there in the end).

Now that I read the whole exchange, Krauss, I have to admit I am much more on Phil’s side than on yours. Reading the above yesterday, I thought maybe you offered a legitimate reading variant, or, if you prefer, a relevant critique.

But in a nutshell, we without any doubt witness strongly clashing views. Oren, as an ethnocentric Jewish nationalist unaware of a changing world [a little like Richard Witty trying to get Phil into the Jewish fold some years ago] and Rothkopf, at least in comparison, as an American liberal/progressive, who also happens to be Jewish.

Random choice: The Ethnocentric Perspective. If I may juxtapose it with my own “ethnocentric perspective” historically?

Oren: Far more Jews — and more people generally — have been killed by radically secular communist and fascist regimes than by religious ones. The degree to which Judaism is “mingled” with the Jewish state derives from deep cultural and historical affinities, not fear.

Not pogroms, the Holocaust then, not fears, the desire to survive? But deep national aspirations?

So it would have needed a specifically Jewish group of victims to be more careful about the potential danger of wars of religion, historically? “the conflict” did not necessarily get a “religious” component?

Aren’t people human first and only have a religion on top of that? Wasn’t religion used superficially to describe the “Jewish Other” over centuries? Didn’t the often poor Crusaders apart from their religious fervor, that seemed to justify it, attack the Jewish communities at least partly since there was something to loot?

If religion does not matter, what exactly is Islamophobia about, and why does it get so much hawkish Jewish and pro-Israel attention and support? Is this the exception to the general rule? Religion at least the “Judeo-Christian” is less dangerous? Or, “Arab” anti-Semitism is the same old as the originally religious and then racially secular prejudice from times immemorial, it simply changed its dress?

Can we be so sure that not quite a few Jewish citizen died in this war too? It seems only natural, and much more odd, if that wasn’t the case. On the other hand maybe lesser of the elites than of the “Jewish masses”?

Wikipedia Casualties Disease: So great was the devastation brought about by the war that estimates put the reduction of population in the German states at about 25% to 40%.[60] Some regions were affected much more than others.[61] For example, Württemberg lost three-quarters of its population during the war.[62] In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas an estimated two-thirds of the population died.[63] The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half.[64] The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs.[65][66] Much of the destruction of civilian lives and property was caused by the cruelty and greed of mercenary soldiers.[67] Villages were especially easy prey to the marauding armies. Those that survived, like the small village of Drais near Mainz, would take almost a hundred years to recover. The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.[68]

Who did editing, especially the italicization, that is the central question that would resolve our question. Did Oren or Rothkopf italicize “elites”? This piece of knowledge might be helpful in any efforts at interpretation. My guess is, it was David. ;)

Elites and their interests and security, no doubt a topic of interest in the post 911 universe. Should only the elites survive in their respective guarded communities? Is Israel a guarded community beyond the usual elite scale? Does it have everyone’s security on its mind, or has elite security “progressed” towards a specifically “ethnocentric security”?

Oren: If a British Jew can salute, fight, and even die for a flag that has not one but three crosses on it, and a government linked to the Church of England, then an Arab can salute the Israeli flag and defend the state for which it stands.

Post French revolution with no doubt some delays as far as respective European states are concerned that duty usually came with equal rights, dear Michael.

My love goes out to David Rothkopf. Great, absolutely great, and yes in reading I responded to the same mislead arrogance as he did later in his answer. Wonderfully subdued, but straightforward and frank.

I defer to you, Phil, on subjects close to Zionism, you know, we defer because we are yoredim and you’ve made aliya. May work for some people, even still. Not for the rest of us. Not for me.

But I see two reasons for mollycoddling Israel and Israelis. First, we still live in the USA, land of power-politics and oligarchy, and BIG-ZION is not yet demonstrated to have been defenestrated. It is still a threat. so watch your mouth! [2] We (who have gone against the settlements, against the occupation, against the continuing expropriation of Palestinian lands inside Israel-48) are trying to persuade Israel, not to frighten it. Big difference. If the shift you, Phil, are celebrating a bit prematurely in this posting comes quite a bit further to pass, there may be American Jews now in power (and not merely Open Hillel types who are possible leaders of next generation) saying, and not molly-coddling:

Israel: now hear this! Settlements are illegal, settlers are illegal, the wall is illegal, the siege is illegal. Get rid of them. Do it now!

that could frighten Israel, and Israel does awful things when frightened (even worse then when not frightened).

I would say that these two reasons have slowed people down who might have said already what Rothkopf has said. It’s also what slowed down his saying it and made his statement so weak, so mollycoddling.

i think that’s just a bad joke, pbelmont, referring back to his introductory sentence about a ‘novel or AMC series’ dramatizing the lives of the ‘what we talk about when we can’t stop talking about ourselves’ crowd.

marc b and Walid– you nailed me! When I wrote, carelessly, without quotes, “we defer because we are yoredim and you’ve made aliya”, I meant that Phil knows this argument, knows people who feel this way, not that HE HIMSELF feels this way.

Reading through all of this, it seems pretty clear to me that you should be the one writing the script, Phil. Brillianty written.

I’ve never been a fan of identity politics writ large, but it is increasingly hard for me to see how you cannot be forced to write about American Jewish culture in the post-war era when writing about Zionism. Because it was we who sustained Israel, defended it at every turn, attacked anyone who was critical of Israel as an anti-Semite. It didn’t matter what your political affiliation was. We were all bound by fate to defend the Jewish state.

Which is why Rothkopf’s act of unchaning himself from the narrow confines of tribal loyalty is so remarkable; he is defying every convention and norm and rule placed on him from child birth.

He is, in short, starting to look through the prism of universalism and principle, which leaves Oren rudderless and defenceless.

Michael Oren tries to put a rational, moderate and civil face on Zionism but the world has easy access to what is really going in Israel and the Zionist world from many sources that paint the real picture, for instance:

There is little doubt that we are looking here at a messianic ethno-religious nationalist cult that is veering into extreme xenophobia. And it is a safe prediction that many Diaspora Jews like David Rothkopf are going to be headed for the exits.

Perhaps Phil can see something in Rothkopf’s letters to Oren that point to a major change going on Rothkopf’s thinking. As long as he continues to dismiss Jimmy Carter and Mearsheimer and Walt as totally out of the discussion on Israel I would have to say that he remains inside the Zionists camp, if perhaps occupying a position near its left border. His nasty review of the M&W book in 2009 (with its ad hominem attacks as pointed out by Slater here at MW) clearly is his printed word on them. Maybe he wouldn’t write those words today, but they stand as he has not retracted them.

What insight: “But the truth of the story is that Rothkopf is the smarter and stronger of the two, he just doesn’t know it yet. And as middle age breaks the two men on its wheel, Rothkopf finally takes Oren on, … horrified as an American. Still he can’t break his silence, till Oren prods him….
“Why the deference to madmen? Well that is the substance of the novel or TV series. Israelis were manly.”

Thanks for showing this insanity so clearly: the US backed Israel’s crimes because ruling tyrant-cowards conflated manliness [“stud”-liness] with militarism (murder). What is “manliness” anyway? For me, it’s the same as “womanliness” or, better, “humanity”: ethical bravery, resilience. And that’s what we all admire in Palestine. Thanks for reminding us that strong, flexible cultures and people–women, kids, as much as men– “serve” not at war-makers’ “front lines,” but leaping over them to connect with other people, who then aren’t “other” anymore.

I think he is right on target with the assessment that Israel is exactly the wrong response to history. In the end, there are two possible conclusions with regards to the horrors inflicted upon the world by nationalism during the first half of the 20th century: One, that people of different ethnicity can’t possibly live together. Two, that people of different ethnicity MUST learn to live together. By making the first conclusion, you might achieve the illusion of temporary relief, but in the long term you merely perpetuate the nationalism and racism which starts the catastrophes you want to prevent in the first place.

Personally I believe in the latter conclusion: I believe in a society where every person is judged as an individual and not through the lens of any racism or xenophobia. People might have different cultural backgrounds, but more importantly we also all have unique personalities. I would have more in common with an egalitarian universalist from the other side of the world than my own brother or sister, if he/she was a nationalist or racial supremacist.

Our distant ancestors who were primitive animals lived in a state of constant strife where every individual fought all others over food and reproduction. Ultimately, our species was able to empathize and organize into families, and from families into communities, and from communities into nations. And now we are facing the next step on that ladder of civilization, that journey from self-replicating molecule to ultimate enlightenment. To proceed, we must work to erase the walls of intolerance and prejudice which separates current perceived ethnic and religious groups. With this in mind, the prospect of a single democracy in Israel/Palestine does not seem like a second choice below a two-state solution. Indeed, it seems more like the only true lasting solution.

History is always in the making and I’m glad Rothkopf has joined Mondoweiss on the side which stands for the future of a united humanity. I feel the world is at the beginning of a realization that the I/P struggle is at its core not really about ethnic group X versus ethnic group Y, but about universal equal rights.

Yes, the I/P struggle is at core about equal rights. It’s hard to imagine that even the US congress folks don’t know this in their heart. Yet look at the bill Rand Paul just dumped on his peers. Ambition turns everything into a game for one’s ego, even whole peoples. “Fair game.”

things are starting to break, the BDS movement (thank you thank you Scarlett Johann sen), Peter Beinart, Rothkoph. The unreflective tribalists such as Oren are on the way out. Such folk are hardly as smart as they think they are and are made vulnerable by such thinkng

You can’t be serious. Apparently you identify with Rothkopf, therefore, embrace his spin as Gospel. I don’t know if he is anti-Zionist as you claim, however, I am positive that he is not, nor likely ever will be, anti-imperialist. To the contrary, Rothkopf is a proud member of the imperial intelligentsia. As for democracy, I am quite sure that he is a stalwart defender of CAPITALIST democracy where one dollar counts for one vote, and neoliberalism reigns supreme. This is your idea of an American everyman? Perhaps you are ideologically closer to Rothkopf than I thought. Oh well, live and learn.

I am quite sure that he is a stalwart defender of CAPITALIST democracy where one dollar counts for one vote, and neoliberalism reigns supreme. This is your idea of an American everyman?

i believe phil was referencing the preceding paragraph which did not primarily address capitalism. either way. there are a lot of american everymans who believe in capitalism, aside from just the elites that is.

I glanced at the photos of Oren and Rothkopf before I read your essay, Phil, and what I thought was that Oren, whom I didn’t recognize, looks like a creep. Definitely not a leading man. He could be cast as a concentration camp officer, or as Lucius Malfoy II, the Death-Eater father of Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films. No one cares about blue eyes anymore.

Rothkop, I thought, looked Eastern European, probably Jewish, possibly kind, possibly with a sense of humor. A leading man, for sure. He would be cast as a doctor or teacher who did the right thing despite the malign forces opposing him.

I know we’re talking about ideas, not appearances, but you did bring this up.

Oren gets to end the dialectics in FP.
He is smart and informed with experiences. But he inserts his interpretation and perspective in a way that make the fact lose it relevance.
1 Cairo riot after Teddy Rossevelt visit-
2 I (Oren) was against Iraq war
3 Palestine will not accord equal rights to other including to Jews
4 America has discrimination – look at incarceration rate.

How does Cairo riot get thrown into the debate and for what? Isit the equivalence of those trolls seen in the postings of the comment sections. Of the media?
Who were you in 2003 to talk against Iraq war? Did you have any power or influence or position , even if you said so , to influence anything ? Where is the quote ? You have information and influence now but we don’t hear your angst or disapproval against war on Iran based on same lies and pregnant with same consequences as that of Iraq war.

Long before your state came to being Arabs from Palestine supported a democratic non religious state based on shared rights and responsibilities and no further immigration.
America has problem.that does not make your discriminatory policy any less repugnant. Despite the discrimination, America is trying to redress the injustices and has over the years embarked on state funded initiative to cater to the needs of the blacks and Latinos.

Human rights leader Dr. Wafa Sultan: “Israel stands alone as the only country in the Middle East with moral legitimacy”

LOL! She’s not a human rights leader. She’s a board member of Pamala Gellar’s Stop Islamization of Nations (SION) who’s never lived in Israel. If she wants to write a book about “A God Who Hates”, she ought to study what the God of Israel has to say. One of the most liberal Zionist leaders, Moshe Shertok, published remarks in 1914 to graduates of the Hebrew Gymnasia of Jaffa, in which he declared that the Arabs are “our mortal enemies.” He compared them to “Amalek” and described the rivalry with them as a kind of fatal decree that cannot be changed, and that therefore there is no point in promising them friendship and peace. http://www.sharett.org.il/English/tom-segev-002.htm

Israel has no more claim to legitimacy than any other state in the Middle East. It was founded on greed, deception, theft, and inequality. It still refuses to grant non-Jews equal protection under its laws.

Prof. W. Tom Mallison testified about Israel’s failure to fulfill its constitutional obligations under the UN resolution 181(II) minority protection plan in his testimony to the US Senate:

The problem stems from the refusal of the state of Israel to comply with its obligations under the minority rights agreement to guarantee equal rights and protection under the law in the areas under its jurisdiction. Among these legal obligations, section 10(d) of part IB is particularly important and provides that each of the states to be set up in Palestine shall have a constitution which includes provisions:
Guaranteeing to all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association. In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution – its main claim to title – puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution.

– See Mallison’s testimony during the Senate hearings on “The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel”, page 50 link to loc.gov

lisa, the concept of ‘nation’ did not even exist back then, much less the idea of people being indigenous nations. by far the vast majority of people who have lived there thru the ages are arab people. the fact some of those arab peoples were jews is ..what it is. but it infers no particular authority or supremacy or rights or claims. especially by european colonialists with 1000’s year old heritage claims.

and obviously, jews “as an indigenous nation” most certainly did not live in the region for the vast majority of last 2 thousand years. there was this big gap where there was only a very small minority living there. in fact throughout most of recorded history the vast majority of jews were simply not there…at all. this should come as no surprise to you. israel is a very young country.

one would have to completely erase the history of millions of jews thru the centuries (including the jews who died in the holocaust) for your allegation to have any truth to it.

lisa, the concept of ‘nation’ did not even exist back then, much less the idea of people being indigenous nations.

Well, the concept of a nation certainly did exist when the representatives of the Jews of France, Italy, Holland, and South Germany declared that they were not members of the same nation as the Jews living in Palestine. The Edinburgh Review observed that the Actes du Grand Sanhédrin (Paris, 1807), were formally sanctioned, legalised and promulgated, on behalf of the Jews of France, Italy, Holland, and South Germany, by the great Sanhedrin summoned by Napoleon in 1806:

“This authoritative body renounced Jewish nationality in unambiguous terms. It declared the Jews to be ‘ neither a nation within a nation, nor cosmopolitan ‘; it affirmed that they were an integral part of the nations among whom they lived, and it claimed for them the same rights, and acknowledged the same duties, as their fellow-citizens, from whom they differed only in religion.

How can “Jews” have been around for 3000+ years when their religion – the thing that initially made them Jews only dates to the 6th Century BC?

And that’s leaving aside the silly way you misuse archaeology (typical of a Zionist – Israeli archaeology must be the most disreputable on the planet). Are you seriously just ignoring all the other people that lived in Palestine over the centuries, how ancient polities interpenetrated one another or are you just that blind to anybody who isn’t “Chosen?”

And as an FYI – Palestinians genetically cluster within Jewish populations – they’re the descendants of Jews who never emigrated from the area in Antiquity hoping for better opportunities elsewhere (nope – there never was an “exile”). In other words, they’re the descendants of the ones who were most loyal to the land of their ancestors.

Another Zio-supremacist advocates for Jewish supremacism rather than for equality everywhere. Imagine that.

The world does not need supremacist countries, not even Jewish supremacist ones.

>> … esp where Jews have lived for over 3000 years

Jews and non-Jews have lived in Palestine for over 3000 years. Any country in that region should have been for all people of that region, equally.

A secular and democratic Israeli state – a state of and for all its Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally – could be that country, either on its own or alongside a similarly secular and democratic Palestinian country.

Oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”, however, is not that country. Not by a long shot.

Legal scholar Eugene Rostow, Fmr Dean, Yale Law School, Undersecretary of State in the Johnson adm, State Dept legal advisor…

“The heated question of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank during
the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective: The
British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close
settlement” in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided
that local conditions might require Great Britain to “postpone” or
“withhold” Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in
1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the
Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the
Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been
terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace
between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view
of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter”

Legal scholar Eugene Rostow, Fmr Dean, Yale Law School, Undersecretary of State in the Johnson adm, State Dept legal advisor…

“The heated question of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank during
the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective: The
British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close
settlement” in the whole of the Mandated territory.

15 of the World’s top jurists rejected that proposition. 14 of them declared the settlements illegal in the 2004 ICJ majority opinion.

FYI, Rostow was not a State Department legal advisor. He was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. When the documents outlining the Johnson administration major foreign policy decisions were declassified and published in 2000, they revealed that Rostow had little if any role in drafting resolution 242 and that he had spent years covering-up the actual US policy regarding the legality of the settlements established by Secretary Rusk and the State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel:

You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol’s Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Finally, you should emphasize that no matter what rationale or explanation is put forward by the GOI, the establishment of civilian settlements in the occupied areas creates the strong appearance that Israel, contrary to the principle set forth in the UNSC Resolution and to US policy expressed in the President’s speech of June 19, does not intend to reach a settlement involving withdrawal from those areas.

FYI, even the Israeli Supreme Court ignored Rostow’s utter nonsense about the “continuing mandate”. The Jewish Agency, the British government, the Arab Higher Committee, and the UNSCOP Commission were unanimous in their demand that the mandate be terminated. The General Assembly respected their wishes, and obliged everyone by adopting a resolution which terminated it “no later than 1 October 1948”.

In a number cases, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that rights under the mandate came to an end when it was terminated and that Jews do not have the right to live in the occupied territories. See CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950), Sifri v. Attorney-General (1950), HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (cited in HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel; and HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel).

From Page 125 of 312 in the Yearbook Of The International Law Commission 1963 Volume II:

211. Following the decisions in Shimshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory Ltd. v. Attorney-General (see para. 416 below) and Sifri v. Attorney-General (see para. 310 below), the Court proceeded from the proposition that Israel is not the successor of the Government of Palestine.

212. Upon the establishment of the State of Israel, one of the Justices stated, a new personality was created. This retains no signs of identification with the previous political body, which completely disappeared as May 14 1948, drew to its close. When the Mandate came to an end the appellant’s right also came to an end. If there is doubt how far a successor State is bound by the contracts and concessions of its predecessor, how much the more is this so as regard a State which is not a successor.

213. Even if Israel was the ” successor ” of Mandated Palestine, another of the Justices said, even then it would not be burdened by obligations acquired in relation to any part of Palestine or its inhabitants who remained outside the boundaries of the State; but now that Israel is not the successor, how much the more is it not encumbered, except to the extent of its own volition, by rights acquired outside the present area of the State. To be precise, that is what was decided in Shimshon v. Attorney-General.

214. Had the Israel Legislature so desired it could have refrained from according any recognition whatsoever to any right acquired by any person during the period of the Mandate. There is no accepted rule of international law requiring an occupying State, or an emancipated State, to recognize in its domestic legislation any action performed by the previous authority — including acts creating private rights for the individual — and even if such a rule were to exist, there is grave doubt whether it would be binding upon the domestic courts as municipal law. In support of this opinion, the Justice referred to the literature on the subject (Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, I, 7th ed., p. 304; Castren, in Recueil des Courts, 78 (1951), p. 490) and to the English authorities of West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. Ltd. v. The King™and Cook v. Sprigg (see paragraph 200 supra).http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes%28e%29/ILC_1963_v2_e.pdf

“The
British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close
settlement” in the whole of the Mandated territory.”

If you have any basic sense of fairness, if you’re going to let Israeli Jews settle in the WB, then you have to let Palestinians have a full and unrestricted right of return inside the 67 borders. They have a much better claim to do that than some immigrant from Brooklyn has to live in the West Bank.

“The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close
settlement” in the whole of the Mandated territory.”

The mandate actually didn’t say that. It protected the rights and position of the existing Arab inhabitants. It also stipulated that Jews weren’t allowed close settlement on any State land or waste land if the British authorities determined they were “required for public purposes” – and it subjected Jewish immigration to “suitable conditions” that were determined at the sole discretion of the international mandatory that had been granted full powers of administration. The Churchill White Paper stipulated that the mandatory never contemplated that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home. When the Jews subsequently demanded a state in a portion of Palestine, the 1939 White Paper partitioned the country and allocated 2/3rds of it to the Arab majority and the remainder to the mixed existing population of Jews and an Arab minority. Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Negev, and the Galilee were legally allocated to the Arabs. http://www.plands.org/articles/images/029-02.jpg

The legality of the 1940 Land Ordinance was upheld by the Palestine High Court of Justice in Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) Vs. the Registar Of Lands, Haifa (1947). If you are arguing the law of the mandate, it’s the job of the High Court to say what the law is. The ICJ and the High Court both ruled that Jews do not have the right to settle in all of Palestine. Full stop (res judicata).

@ lisa Bandrea “… But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the
Gaza Strip, was made unassailable.”

Ever actually read the LoN Mandate FOR Palestine?

Article 7 of the Mandate http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine

That’s not correct. The Jewish Agency and the Jewish National (aka People’s) Council, Vaad Leumi, claimed that they “accepted” the terms of resolution 181(II). It contained a contract of adhesion that spelled-out the new terms regarding citizenship in the two states which formally terminated the right of Jews to settle in the Arab state and vice versa:

Part I. – Future Constitution and Government of Palestine
…
The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, provisions for:
Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations;

Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.
…
Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.

The Allied Powers at San Remo granted the British government the sole discretion to draft the terms of the LoN mandate needed to implement the Balfour declaration and present them to the Council of the League. they simply included the additional undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of any of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestinehttp://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248

In that connection, the Council of the League was perfectly well acquainted with the British policy contained in the 1922 Churchill White Paper, which said the British government never contemplated that Palestine as a whole would become the Jewish National Home. In fact, the only terms upon which Churchill ever stated that the Jews were in Palestine by right and not by sufferance, were the ones he cited in the Zionist undertaking to jointly establish a common Jewish and Arab home:

They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.’ In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.”

The Zionists were never granted the right to exclude or transfer portions of the Arab population from the “common home,” even under the plans for partition and a Jewish majority state that it submitted to the UN.

Like every other great political defeat, the Zionists tried to transform Article 80 of the UN Charter into a great victory through the use of ignorant propaganda, and then started believing it themselves.

One of the legal advisors to the Jewish Agency, Jacob Robinson, published a book in 1947 that presented a historical account of the Palestine Question and the United Nations. He explained, that when the Jewish Agency learned the Allied Powers had discussed a new system of international supervision to supersede the system of mandates at the Yalta Conference, that the Agency had submitted a formal request to the San Francisco Conference on the UN Organization to obtain a safeguarding clause in the Charter. The proposed clause would have prevented a trusteeship agreement from altering the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. But the UN Conference ignored the Agency’s request and stipulated in article 80 of the Charter that the UN organization did have the necessary power to conclude trusteeship agreements that could alter existing rights held under a mandate. — See Robinson, Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to a Solution, Greenwood Press, 1971 Reprint (1947), pages 2-3.

Articles 18, 81, and 85 of the Charter and Article 28 of the Mandate reserved the rights and conditions for termination of the mandate and granted the General Assembly the power to adopt legally binding decisions for the UN Organization to go on administering parts of the territory, like Jerusalem, directly as part of a special trust regime separate from the emancipated Jewish and Arab States. That’s exactly what it did under the auspices of resolution 181(II). Article 78 of the Charter ended the status of tutelage for any member state like Israel: ‘The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.’ — See H. Duncan Hall, “Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship”, Carnegie Endowment, 1948, pages 265-266 Israel can’t claim continuing rights under a mandate using Article 80, while it also claims the rights of an emancipated UN member state with sovereign equality.

FYI, Article 80 was suggested by the Arab states to protect the rights Palestinian Arabs had obtained under the mandate, the 1939 White Paper, and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance until the UN could ratify the de facto partition. If anything, article 80 preserved the right to exclude Jews from settling in the areas allocated to the Arabs outside the “national home” – pending the adoption of a decision on trusteeship and termination of the mandate, like the ones contained in resolution 181(II). See the discussion on this page and the following page under “Palestine” in “The United Nations conference on international organization, San Francisco, California, April 25-June 26, 1945”, Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945.

The scope of Article 80 was strictly limited to the operation of the International Trusteeship System contained in Chapter 12, i.e. it stipulates “nothing in this Chapter” & etc.. Many Zionists misread that as “nothing in this [UN Charter]. But the General Assembly adopted resolution 9 several months prior to the final session of the Assembly of the League of Nations and advised all of the mandate holders and UN member states that their Charter obligations regarding the establishment of self-governing institutions operated in the interest and well being of all the inhabitants contained in Chapter 11 of the Charter were already in full force and effect. So the 25 year old Zionist trick of denying the Arab majority a representative lawmaking body on the basis of the mandate was over, right then and there.

P.S. The power of the General Assembly to terminate a mandate regime and place Namibia under direct UN supervision was the subject of the 1970 Namibia case in which the ICJ noted that it was a mistaken view to conclude that, just because the General Assembly had the power to make recommendations and to adopt findings on facts determined by others, that it was debarred from making its own decisions and laying down the law. Article 80 was a limitation on the power of the mandatory regime, not on the General Assembly.

During the 271st meeting of the Security Council US Ambassador Austin cited UN General Assembly Resolution 24 (I) and stated:

The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system.

See UN General Assembly Resolution 24 (I), Transfer of Certain Functions, Activities, and Assets of the League of Nations link to un.org
and the verbatim minutes of the Security Council S/PV.271, 19 March 1948
The General Assembly’s limited supervision of the mandates fell under its own powers and rules of procedure contained in Chapter IV, Article 10 and Chapter XI Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories, Article 73.

The final session of the Assembly of the League of Nations took note of Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories and General Assembly resolution 9 and commented on the fact that the UN had its own independent system in place to deal with the issue of the mandates.

Zionist propaganda claimed that the terms of the Balfour Declaration had become an immutable part of the Law of the UN Charter through the operation of Article 80, but that was always nonsense.

Any military occupation that violates a member’s obligations under the UN Charter is defined as the crime of aggression.

*United Nations Charter:

Article 2
…
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

On a number of occasions the General Assembly has determined that Israel’s continuing occupation of Arab territories captured in 1967 in violation of the explicit terms of the Charter and UN resolutions amounts to an act of aggression.

Recalling its resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, in which it defined an act of aggression as, inter alia, “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof, and provided that “no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as justification for aggression,

Stressing once again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions,

Noting that Israel’s record and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter,

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council, the latest being resolution 437 (1981),

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and General Assembly resolution 36/226 B;

2. Declares that Israel’s decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights constitutes an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX);
…
9. Firmly emphasizes its demands that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory;

10. Reaffirms the overriding necessity of the total and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from all Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,

11. Declares that Israel’s record and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949;

*Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

Article 8bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

“act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

*Charter of the Organization of American States
Chapter IV
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES:

Article 21

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

Intl law prohibits acquisition of territory in OFFENSIVE war, not defensive war as in Israel’s historical situations.

That’s factually incorrect. Stephen M. Schwebel’s “What Weight to conquest” was originally published in The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 1970), pp. 344-347. It was clearly labeled as an “Editorial Comment”. ASIL policies on Editorial Comments are not the same as those for scholarly articles. They are short unrefereed articles about current events. See 3. Editorial Comments and 4. Referees in “The American Society of International Law’s First Century: 1906-2006″, By Frederic L. Kirgis & The American Society of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, ISBN: 9004150684

The General Assembly subsequently published a deliberate codification of the rules of customary international law on the subject dated 24 October 1970. Among other things, it stated:

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

— Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

In his 1986 article on “The International Status of Jerusalem”, Prof. Antonio Cassese wrote that Robert Jennings (author of “The Acquisition of Territory in International Law”, Manchester University Press, 1963 and editor of several volumes of Oppenheim’s International Law, London, Longman) was recognized as the great authority on the acquisition of territory in international law. Jennings explained in 1963 (see pages 54-57) that as a result of developments in customary international law and the adoption of the UN Charter “conquest as a title to territorial sovereignty had ceased to be a part of the law.” Jennings cited Judge Hersh Lauterpacht’s work on the International Law Commission (ILC) in which he had explained that, even when force is used against an aggressor, the fact of aggression itself is irrelevant in deciding the legal remedies. They do not include acquisition of title to territory through a treaty settlement imposed by or as the result of force or the threat of force. Cassese wrote that it does not follow from Schwebel’s premise that either Jordan or Israel had acquired sovereignty over any territory through the use of military force.

lisa, are you a robot? you already said that and there are responses to your comment. please do not spam the thread and please do not try reposting comments that have been trashed (build baby build, etc). try to address the arguments being made. just because you’d like to post 40 comments to the thread doesn’t mean they all will be published.

Justice Stephen Schwebel, Fmr Pres. Of the ICJ, has written Israel’s acquisition of land was lawful link to debriefing.org

He wrote all of that before he served on the ICJ. More importantly he wrote that before the General Assembly codified the customary rules of international law in accordance with the UN Charter; the Definition of Aggression; and a series of resolutions that the Assembly and the ICJ said were applicable to Israel’s continued occupation or annexation of the Arab territories captured in 1967.

A) Towards the top of your article ” (not written in any of his former official capacity)” May I suggest
B) The word ‘land’ relates to ‘real estate’. States have “territory”. UNSC resolutions say “territory” as in “occupied” and;
C) He did not write that Israel’s “acquisition” of land was lawful. He said “occupation” was lawful as long as it was necessary for defense. However the UNSC (UNSC re 476) says Professor Schwebel was spouting ziopoop
D) He said it was legal to “restore” the territory of a sovereign http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel
E) No Israeli territory has ever been taken. Israel has never had to “restore” sovereignty over any of its territory.

99. The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, a distinguished authority on international law, as follows:
“… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territorial change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign.”

False. That you believe that only shows your ignorance. To roughly paraphrase the Montevideo convention no state shall recognize territorial gains made by force threat if force or other coercive means. Also none of the wars israel gained territory in were defensive

@ lisa Bandrea “Intl law prohibits acquisition of territory in OFFENSIVE war, not defensive war as in Israel’s historical situations”

Problem…. no state has ever been censured by the UNSC for attacking Israel. A) Israel’s wars have been preemptive. The preemptor starts its war/s
B) Israel’s wars have been fought in territories the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT officially claimed were “outside the State of Israel”http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

Seems lisa has learned the Hasbara by rote, without bothering to check the veracity of what she has been told.

No, a preemptive attack is one made to anticipate an attack that is intended and under way, but has not yet been delivered. (In simple individual terms, someone pulls his fist back to hit me, so I kick him in the balls before he actually completes the punch.) Traditional just war theory (for what it’s worth) regards this as permissible.

A preventative war is one made to prevent a possible opponent making war before that opponent has actually started making war. (In simple individual terms, the guy at the other end of the bar gave me dirty look, so I go over and bash his head in with a beer bottle before he decides to start anything.) TJW regards this as impermissible. The proposed attacks on Iran would be preventative.

It seems to me that all but one of Israel’s wars have been either preventative or straight out aggressive. None have been preemptive.

Those countries and those people would still be inhabiting those areas even if they were not Christian or Muslim. The religious identities like language change . But human continues to live down generations. The problem would be no different if the identities are swapped around or forced to change within themselves or to some new one.

lisa Bandrea ” More than enough room for 1 Jewish country, esp where Jews have lived for over 3000 years”

Go take your whining and bitching to the stupid Zionist Federation, it was their insistence on a separate Jewish state that resulted in Jewish Israelis now not being able to live anywhere in the Jewish People’s historic homeland. Nor can Arab Israelis BTW, unless of course they’d like to become Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese or Jordanian citizens. Fortunately Arab Israelis are in their homeland, it just happens to be called Israel, so they have no need to go live elsewhere, unless of course they’re made homeless by the Jewish state, which is what the creep Lieberman would have.

Of course, the irony is that Herzl and co could have in his life time, gone to live in Palestine, attained citizenship, bought land and settled anywhere in the Jewish people’s historic homeland. He didn’t even bother. Rather odd? But then he wasn’t from the region, nor was the Zionist Federation.

Nice sound bite but it’s irrelevant. Just because it the only country with a jewish religious majority doesn’t mean it isn’t beholden to the same rules as everyone else. It’s a stolen country that should have never been

American nationalists constantly refer to their country as ‘the greatest nation on earth’ (and this is most often done by people who have never been abroad). Many others think it is perfectly reasonable to say things like “the world looks to the U.S as an example of democracy”. This makes many Europeans like me shake our heads, as the American system seems like a nightmare seen from here. One of our greatest frustrations is to see our systems move in the same direction, with more an more influence of money in politics, and everything being centered on superficial television debates.
Now I see this remark passing by as if it were something self-evident, America as ” the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history”.
Sigh. This is just provincialism.

With such flaws, they are never able to see the blunders or shortcomings by the US. They seems genuinely surprised that the US can be disliked in other parts of the world, and not connect that dislike to America’s arrogant policies, it’s support for a brutal occupier, and it’s endless wars for oil, and power. They expect the world to accept the interference into other nations, and it’s self appointed position, to decide exactly who must be toppled from their leadership, and exactly who should be replaced. This is love for one’s country blinding you to it’s faults.
You are right, many of them have never left the shores of this nation, to know any different.

The personality (the rhetoric) of Max B. is designed to infuriate, not to liberate. I can’t see that the personality clash that Max B. personifies is designed to liberate.

I don’t see how universalists who don’t even talk to the identity issue, as if it had been solved by America and assimilation and universalism, can liberate a people whose sensibilities they don’t even recognize.

I think you’re right, I think it does infuriate. Max’s book, which I bought, is an infuriating read. It’s hard to read about about casual racism and war crimes that are committed with no accountability. Why can’t Israel be held accountable for its action.
This is the 21st century and any ideology or country that is incapable of seeing ALL peoples as equals deserves to end up on the ash heap of history.

But in yonah’s case, it isn’t the racism that infuriates him. It’s Max’s openness about the racism that infuriates him. It offends his “sensibilities”, so therefore, since it infuriates him personally he can’t imagine how it could be liberating to anyone else. You aren’t agreeing with yonah here, abc, you are agreeing with Max.

speaking of max, goliath, and jewish identity issues..these are all subjects discussed in this most amazing radio interview (really, the longer you listen the better it gets) from 2 days ago at Emoprog Army Radio. the hosts are really interesting and max is .. i can’t describe it. unleashed is not the word for it because it implies max is otherwise leashed. just listen to it

Max has been proven to have problems with truthfulness, which is one reason for the failure of the book

I haven’t found anything in the book that can’t be verified from independent Israeli press reports and/or the statements made by opposition members of the Knesset. Max has done a pretty good job of reporting and has provided readers in the US and elsewhere with an invaluable compendium of information on the most pressing issues.

I think the line: “Blumenthal is liberating Jews,” is outrageous and ridiculous.
Although imperfect I offer an analogy: Black Republicans might say that their party comes to liberate the blacks of America from their servitude to the welfare system that must be cast off if they are to advance out of the past and to the future. I’m sure that many black people would find such “liberator” rhetoric as outrageous, ridiculous and offensive. It is in that vein that I find “Blumenthal is liberating Jews” as ridiculous.

This web site states as one of its purposes that it seeks “to offer alternatives to pro-Zionist ideology as a basis for American Jewish identity.” In fact when the primary voices here are those that mock any discussion of Jewish identity the idea that Max B. liberates the Jews or that this place is offering alternatives is an insult and offensive.

The idea of liberating Jews from Zionism or from post 67 Zionism is not ridiculous. (Thus my reference to Yeshaya Leibowitz that not one of you referenced. Look him up in “goliath”. He’s in there and I’ve commended Max for that.) The idea that Max is the one to do the liberating is silly given his pugnacious words. If you wish to liberate the Jews, might I suggest developing the ability to communicate with the Jews, particularly those who disagree with you. Otherwise it will be difficult to liberate those who see you as an enemy. Max B. and Phil W. seem to relish the enmity they inspire. Maybe that is valid and necessary for them at this moment in history in the struggle regarding Zionism and Jewish identity. But you can’t relish the mud wrestling in front of Zabar’s and then claim: we come to liberate you. That is arrogant and plain old stupid. Learn to communicate with those you disagree with before you claim: we come to liberate you. Otherwise you are offensive and arrogant. And ridiculous.

“That is arrogant and plain old stupid. Learn to communicate with those you disagree with before you claim: we come to liberate you. Otherwise you are offensive and arrogant. And ridiculous.”

Your anger seems misplaced. Whenever there is a moral issue of this sort (oppression of one group by another), you’re going to have dissidents with all sorts of different styles. I honestly don’t get why Max B gets under your skin so much. But supposing he was as bad as you see him, or worse, suppose he was the same as a certain jazz musician (who I really do think is contemptible). He’s one person (or two, if you want to lump Phil in with him). The issue remains the same–Israel is oppressing Palestinians. American Jews who support Israel aren’t some class of undereducated people who have no way of knowing better–to the extent that they reflexively support Israel no matter what it does, it’s their own choice. There were extremists in the 60’s back in the days of the civil rights movement who either hated whites or were portrayed as hating whites. In no way whatsoever would that provide an excuse for whites to pretend Jim Crow wasn’t happening.

Besides, there are other critics of Israel who shouldn’t be offensive at all, if the criterion is that a critic should identify strongly with their Jewish identity rather than as some secular outsider. Henry Siegman, say, or Michael Lerner, who couches his criticism of Israel in terms of his love for Jewish tradition or the ideals of social justice that he finds in the Hebrew prophets. Even Peter Beinart, who doesn’t go far enough IMO, was seen as the enemy by many. I saw Beinart being interviewed by someone on “Shalom TV” (Golub? I see him a lot but can’t remember his name) who took great care to point out that Beinart was actually a well-meaning good guy who loved Judaism. Why was it necessary for him to have to say that in Beinart’s defense? If people can’t see that Beinart loves his Jewish heritage, then they are willfully blind.

Oh, and remember how Goldstone was treated, before he caved in to the pressure and basically retracted.

I think the line: “Blumenthal is liberating Jews,” is outrageous and ridiculous….is an insult and offensive…..is silly given his pugnacious words…..offensive and arrogant. And ridiculous.

i suppose this is somewhat of an improvement over your earlier comment: The personality (the rhetoric) of Max B. is designed to infuriate

maybe you should take more ownership of your thoughts and just state clearly that max infuriates and offends you. really yonah, these comments are nothing more than a rant, and ah hominem. there’s simply nothing here to substantiate your emotions/opinion. and what does it even mean to say a persons personality is designed to infuriate? you make his personality sound like a plot!

and what’s so wrong with him infuriating you? this is a natural reaction to someone whose got your goat, and max has got your goat. he’s got sense, truth and charisma and he’s influential and you don’t like what he’s saying. you don’t want to face the consequences of what he’s saying. so what? change, do something about it.

and what does it mean universalists who don’t even talk to the identity issue……the primary voices here are those that mock any discussion of Jewish identity . why don’t you tell us what your jewish identity means to you? i don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. israel is not ‘jewish identity’ to me. zionism is not jewish identity to me.

if you want to talk about it, talk about it. don’t blame max because the cat’s got your tongue. and don’t blame max because the crimes carried out in your name are damaging your jewish identity in the eyes of the world, if that’s what you see. face the music! and if your going to whine about max at least have the decency to quote him and give some examples. and no, your analogy of republican blacks is definitely not a good analogy. why use an analogy when you could simply quote max. use an example from the radio show i posted, be specific. tell us why you’re so infuriated.

Sean Hasbara is full of holes. Hasbara posts usually result in numerous answers each pointing out a different hole. The google result shows every time the name “lisa Bandrea” is mentioned, incl in replies

sean, whenever a comment of lisa’s shows up on the feed on the right side of the page, her name will appear on a google search of comments from any mondoweiss post from any year. i have no recollection of her presents on this site before the other day. try your search again when she’s not currently present on the feed., the results will be different.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.